There are times when even the best of intentions go horribly wrong when a minute point is misrepresented. I shall be 'pithy' without much opining.
In O'Reilly's talking points memo of October 9, 2006 [1] he made his point well regarding the poweful forces trying to influence the American voting process. But he blew it with one sentence that simply is not historical.
"You remember Iran destroyed Jimmy Carter's re-election chances in 1980 with the hostage fiasco."
No. Iran did not destroy Jimmy Carter's re-election chances. Jimmy Carter did that and he did far worse.
The facts go a long way to make a serious point about today's situation with Iran and North Korea that liberals just cannot comprehend and well-meaning libertarians have not seized as part of their image of reality.
Hostile action MUST bring immediate pro-action. Period.
Jimmy Carter was not a victim of Iran.
America was a victim of Jimmy Carter.
Americans counted down the days, all 444 of them, nightly on the newly created counting show, Nightline. With each day, the average American then, grew angrier at the lack of action by Jimmy Carter. The blundering attempts Carter made to free the country from Iran's clutches only made Iran more intent on showing he could not do so.
Each day the hostages were held, this nation was held hostage a day too long. Jimmy Carter did not comprehend the consequences of his inaction. He paid the price for it when Iran knew Ronald Reagan was NOT Jimmy Carter. Iran released the hostages immediately upon Reagan's Presidency. It was an agreement with Carter that did it. But it was Reagan's emminent presence that caused it to happen when it did.
Today, we try to all 'just get along'. We excuse hatred and violence attempting to 'understand' the motivation. We seek to talk our way out of violence and then wonder why the other side just doesn't stop when they say they are going to. We are doing what Jimmy Carter did with Iran and Iran had to be faced with the assurance of Ronald Reagan to realize the end of their civilization was at hand. When Reagan was elected, Iran started talking.
Had Iran continued to hold this country hostage, do you think for one split millisecond that President Reagan would not have unleashed the rath of US upon that country? He did not have to. But HE knew a strong position is the best position to be in when dealing with tyrants. The Soviet Union found that out later in his Presidency, but liberals will ignore that fact.
Today, we do not show the same resolve as Reagan. We do not show the same unity of a country in war. We do not show the same focus of security. Iran, Bin Laden, Chavez, North Korea and the rest of the tyrants of the world are counting on it. And we do not let them down.
Every single effort taken by this administration to protect this country is met with political attack by the party wishing to be in power. America's security is second place to political gain.
O'Reilly reached his non-historical line in support of a current true event. "Now Iran wants to keep the USA pinned down in Iraq so America cannot rally the opposition against Tehran for their nuclear ambitions and other things. It also wants to weaken President Bush in the upcoming election.[1]"
The sorry state of affairs is that the same thing is being attempted by the Democrat party, with one twist.
The Democrats want the country to BELIEVE it is pinned down in Iraq so it DOES weaken the President. That, they hope, will result in losses of Republican House and Senate seats so they can get about the business of socializing the country even further.
We witnessed how Jimmy Carter reacted to the taking of Americans in Iran. Carter's own library website excuses his inaction this way. "President Carter committed himself to the safe return of the hostages while protecting America's interests and prestige. He pursued a policy of restraint that put a higher value on the lives of the hostages than on American retaliatory power or protecting his own political future." And they say it like it is the right thing.
The WikiPedia explanation sets it up. "On November 4, [1979] amid another chaotic occupation of the grounds, a mob of around 500 Iranian students (although reported numbers vary from 300 to 2000) calling themselves the Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam seized the main embassy building. The guard of Marines was thoroughly outnumbered, and staff rushed to destroy communications equipment and sensitive documents."[2]
Soverign American soil had been invaded.
Operation Eagle Claw, the FIRST failed attempt to free the hostages took place on the night of April 24, 1980. Carter waited 5 months, 21 days, or 173 days to take action regarding the overpowering of U.S. Marines and the invasion of soverign American soil.
The event lasted 444 days. Carter took 39% of the time of the entire event, before he did ANYTHING that stood a chance to attempt to stop an invasion of soverign American soil.
O'Reilly comes to his incorrect assumption of history through what is known as the "Algiers Accords". The signature on that document on January 19, 1980 is said to have brought the event to a close and freed the hostages. That is not what happened.
"Iranian students demanded that the U.S. government apologize for its interference in the internal affairs of Iran and for the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. They also demanded that Iran's assets in the U.S. be released. The assets had been frozen by the U.S. government in response to the hostage taking. Revolutionary teams displayed secret documents taken from the embassy, sometimes painstakingly reconstructed after shredding, to buttress their claim that U.S. intelligence was trying to destabilize the new regime. [2]"
At first, Carter rejected the demands of Iran. Then, after two failed attempts to wave a weak sword, the "Algiers Accords" were signed. Ronald Reagan was coming to office. Iran received, through politically expedient negotiation, exactly what it set out to receive by invading soverign American soil and it happened just in time for Iran.
"Shortly after the election, but before the inauguration of President Reagan, the Carter administration, with the assistance of intermediaries such as Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib, opened fruitful negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. ...the "Algiers Accords" of January 19, 1981, committ[ed] Iran to free the hostages immediately. Essential to the Algiers Accords and reportedly a non-negotiable requirement of Iran that the Carter Administration reluctantly conceded was Point I: Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs. It reads "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Other provisions of the Algiers Accords were the unfreezing of 8 billion dollars worth of Iranian assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced.[2] "
What was American's 'non-negotiable' demand? There was none.
Iran took the United States of America to its negotiating knees and won. Carter's weakness and belief in the failed 'all just get along' absurdity wound up releasing hostages, before Iran had to face Ronald Reagan when Carter should have shown Iran the lesson of invading soverign American soil, 444 days before.
Why do you think Iran signed the deal when they did? Was it because it was what they wanted all along? No. They knew they could get that. It was, afterall, a Democrat in charge. They just had to get it done BEFORE Reagan refused to allow it to end that way.
Through Jimmy Carter, Iran and all tyrants of the world learned a lesson. A Democrat will try to talk his way out of anything even if it means giving up exactly what was demanded in the first place, if there is a political gain for doing it or a legacy to create in smoke. And that brings me, once again to the point O'Reilly made that was right.
"Now Iran wants to keep the USA pinned down in Iraq so America cannot rally the opposition against Tehran for their nuclear ambitions and other things. It also wants to weaken President Bush in the upcoming election.[1]"
It wants another Democrat in charge.
In the meantime, the agreement of selling the soul of a nation to terrorism by Jimmy Carter has lingering effects.
Bound by the agreement, the Bush Administration has been forced to step into legal matters of former hostages suing Iran. In 1996 the congress passed an amendment to the foreign sovereign immunity law which grants the right to sue a country listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. That did not terminate an agreement made in dishonor.
After a default judgment in 2001 against Iran and action again this year, the State Department has had to step into the issue to enforce "immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced."
Quoted in the Washington Post: "'Every one of us has spoken the same line for 26 years: The Iranians cannot get away with what they did because it sends the wrong message,' said Richard H. Morefield, a former hostage and 50-year State Department veteran who was the embassy's consul general when it was seized in 1979 and who still works at State, declassifying records for the archives."
Mr. Morefield, you have Jimmy Carter to thank for never being able to hold Iran accountable.
"...Iran [did NOT] destroy Jimmy Carter's re-election chances in 1980."
Jimmy Carter did.
He destroyed the victims chances for the rest of their lives, and he taught terrorists how to deal with the United States, as long as a Democrat is in charge.
We've been paying that price, ever since, and Democrats still have not learned the lesson.
Now that North Korea has taken to thumbing its appendage at peace, the Democrats are showing what they are made of.
From AP, [3] "Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the president's rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate, assailed Bush's policy as a 'shocking failure,' and said, 'While we've been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.'" Harry Reed said, "The Bush administration has for several years been in a state of denial about the growing challenge of North Korea, and has too often tried to downplay the issue or change the subject.' [3]"
Meanwhile Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky did opine: "Listening to some Democrats, you'd think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il. [3]"
Iran AND North Korea hope the American people fall for that. Again.